LDS Wondering About the Godhead and the Trinity

[Peter1000]

Actually "person" in modern usage isn't a very good word. "Personality" is much more useful. One Essence with 3 separate personalities.

That smacks of Sabellianism, which you really want to avoid, but which is truely unavoidable in the Trinity.

 

[Peter1000]

You are almost there. The correct formula in modern formal English is...


A. The one God which we experience is three persons who are one in being = one in subsistence & persistence = substantiality not materiality = not a composite but a unity of nous (not merely unity of purpose but incorporates the interpersonal relationship of the three with us and each other. Experiential rather than experimental).

God is not "in" three persons. That introduces from Plato what is known as the 4th man which inhabits each of the three persons. Which is obviously a thought in opposition to the Trinity dogma.

An interesting analysis of the Trinity:
1) 3 Persons who are 1 in being. -- In saying that there are 3 Person in 1 being, you are saying that wherever Jesus is, the other 2 are there with him. They are all at the same place in time and space.
2) 1 in subsistence -- You are saying that They exist. good.
3) 1 in persistence -- You are saying that They don't give up. good.
4) 1 in substantiality -- You are saying that They are a considerable amount or quantity, or size. Do you have any idea what the substance is They are made of that is substantial?
5) 1 in not material -- do you realize that immaterial means They are made up of nothing? So substantial amounts of immateriality is still nothing??
6) 1 in not a composite -- If They are not material, not sure why you would mention composite???
7) 1 in unity of nous -- 3 Persons who are in 1 being. Does this being have 3 minds or intellects??
8) incorporates the interpersonal relationship of the 3 with us and each other??
You will have to explain this statement further, but it sounds like all of our minds or intellects are in the Trinity???
9) Experiential rather than experimental -- I hope God is past the experimental processes, to where we can have a true experience with God, so experiential is good.

Good comment on the 4th man inhabiting the other 3 in the Trinity. That would never do. Glad you agreee.

So you have given us a lot to think about, thank you for this contribution to the subject.

 

[Dustoff]

The problem with person is it brings too much distinctiveness to it. Two persons standing together are entirely distinct and separate and couldn't be confused. Person really comes out of Roman law which didn't have as much distinctiveness to it.

The Greek idea of face or aspect and hypostasis is better. The best term is probably manifestation but it doesn't get used much in modern times.

The biblical view is God is one Spirit in 3 eternal Hypostasis or manifestations. I prefer the using the word personalities.

Believing God is 3 persons so united in unity and purpose that they are one is why they are Mormons and we are Christians

 

[Peter1000]

The problem with person is it brings too much distinctiveness to it. Two persons standing together are entirely distinct and separate and couldn't be confused. Person really comes out of Roman law which didn't have as much distinctiveness to it.

The Greek idea of face or aspect and hypostasis is better. The best term is probably manifestation but it doesn't get used much in modern times.

The biblical view is God is one Spirit in 3 eternal Hypostasis or manifestations. I prefer the using the word personalities.

Believing God is 3 persons so united in unity and purpose that they are one is why they are Mormons and we are Christians

So was Stephen right when he said he looked into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right side of God. If you have 2 Persons/manifestations standing next to each other, then 1 Spirit doesn't cut it biblically, because it is not distinctive and separate enough for this bible event. (see Acts 7:56)

 

[Karl.C]

An interesting analysis of the Trinity:
1) 3 Persons who are 1 in being. -- In saying that there are 3 Person in 1 being, you are saying that wherever Jesus is, the other 2 are there with him. They are all at the same place in time and space.

You are reading too much into the English term "one in being". You and I are presumably both human, therefore we are "one in being" in respect of our humanity but we are in different places, spaces & probably timezones...

The term in English/Latin translates the term "homoousios" = "of the same ousia". Ousia basically refers to the agreed definition/identification of a thing (genus vs species). In English, as used theologically: Species (a particular hypostasis) identifies "this individual" whereas Genus (a particular ousia) identifies a particular grouping of individuals who are perceivd to have the same essential attributes (same definition).

2) 1 in subsistence -- You are saying that They exist. good.

The Latins use subsisterie & substantia interchaneably and for clarification usually supply which Greek term they are meaning, Hypostasis or Ousia (see above). That's because Latin & English haven't got the vocabulary to make the distinction. Both Greek terms literally mean "what lays beneath", but hypostasis=the individual's self identiification (who he/she is) whereas ousia=our perception of what he/she is.

3) 1 in persistence -- You are saying that They don't give up. good.

There is a difference in English between perseverance (the definition of which you gave), and persistence (see Hebrews 13:8).

4) 1 in substantiality -- You are saying that They are a considerable amount or quantity, or size. Do you have any idea what the substance is They are made of that is substantial?

Substaniality as an English term has been used in theology since the 14th century as a reference to "the reality of an existence" (see above). It comes to us from the Latins' attempt to translate the Greek term "ousia". Your application is derived from archaic French. Still, in colloquial French or English it can be used to describe an extent of majesty or magnificence or a reality rather than a measure of volume. Quality vs Quantity.

5) 1 in not material -- do you realize that immaterial means They are made up of nothing? So substantial amounts of immateriality is still nothing??

At John 4:24 Jesus says "God as "Spirit". At John 3:8 Jesus said “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Conclusion: Ethereal beings are invisible to us & so, logically not perceptable to the human eye = immaterial in the common definition. Still they are comparable to the wind. We can't see it of itself but we can feel it & see its effects.

Do ethereal beings consist of created matter?

6) 1 in not a composite -- If They are not material, not sure why you would mention composite???

Onessness Pentecostals would argue the three are a composite being = one individual with three personalities. Trinitarians would argue that our experience of the three individuals cause us to perceive no discernabale difference in personality (compare John 14:7,9).

7) 1 in unity of nous -- 3 Persons who are in 1 being.

I'll assume you've made an innocent typo but I could construe your remark as attempting an obvious deception through distortion. What you provided represents Sabellian teaching, not Trinitarian teaching which is "who are in being" (see above).

Does this being..

The term "one in being" does not refer to a hypostasis (an individual) but to ousia (the essentiality of the group of which an individual is perceived as belonging). A person can be representative of a group, but the group is not necessarily representative of the individual = an individual will have personal attributes that distinguish them from other individuals within the group. Compare the Hebrew of Genesis 5:1-2 both Adam & Eve (two distinct individuals) are deemed by God to be both "adam" (the group).

have 3 minds or intellects??

If there are three individuals then there must be three distinct intelligences, but these individuals can be in full accord with each other (colloquially you might say they are "of the same mind").

8) incorporates the interpersonal relationship of the 3 with us and each other??
You will have to explain this statement further, but it sounds like all of our minds or intellects are in the Trinity???

Read the NT, especially John 17. It is the Christian objective = to be in full accord with the Father, the Son, the Sprit & eath other.

9) Experiential rather than experimental -- I hope God is past the experimental processes, to where we can have a true experience with God, so experiential is good.

In my observation people dabble in religion (experiment), few are receptive to the idea that they are capable of the experiential. Imo. many reject the idea preferring to cringe in fear.

Good comment on the 4th man inhabiting the other 3 in the Trinity. That would never do. Glad you agree.

Those who adhere to Trinitarian belief don't appeal to philosophy directly, especially Plato's ideas on "the forms" as external to the actualisations. Imu of the Trinity, the Father is the prototype of the Son & Spirit. Similar to Adam being the prototype of all that proceeded from him (ie: mankind = in the OT original Hebrew, God refers to it as "adam")

So you have given us a lot to think about, thank you for this contribution to the subject.

From your remarks I stand accused of not presenting the Trinitarian position clearly enough... Hope I did better in the above clarifying responses...

 

[Karl.C]

The problem with person is it brings too much distinctiveness to it. Two persons standing together are entirely distinct and separate and couldn't be confused. Person really comes out of Roman law which didn't have as much distinctiveness to it.

Actually, from my studies into slavery in ancient cultures, the Romans were very exact in defining distinctions in respect of "person". Under Roman law slaves were not "persons", they were mere chattel (until relatively recently such was also true in USA's slavery laws, but not in most European law/s where slaves often had the same status as indentured servants).

In Rome, as time progressed, certain slaves were granted special status as servants/representatives of their master (equivalent to a dog fetching the evening newspaper at their master's command), as more time progressed some slaves were granted a de facto status as if being a person (those who on the authority of their master could negotiate legally binding contracts). Even when a slave was granted freedom he/she was considered a defective "person" as compared to a free born "person".

Reality is, the ideas can be traced back to the Greeks (who never practiced democracy as general suffrage). As Aristotle put it (paraphrased) "a slave that becomes a king, was never a slave. A king that becomes a slave, was never a king".

ps. If memory serves me well: I think it was Caligula who decreed his horse to be a "legal person" and then appointed it as a senator...

 

[Dustoff]

Actually, from my studies into slavery in ancient cultures, the Romans were very exact in defining distinctions in respect of "person"

Ok I didn't phrase that very well. What I meant was that in roman law it can mean more than a distinct person. I was speaking of person being someone who had legal rights and referred to joint ownership of property.

So was Stephen right when he said he looked into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right side of God. If you have 2 Persons/manifestations standing next to each other, then 1 Spirit doesn't cut it biblically, because it is not distinctive and separate enough for this bible event. (see Acts 7:56)

All that proves is that God has a triune nature. See also that Stephen was filled with the Spirit as he saw it.

The only way to really understand Gods triunity is to deal with it on the basis of God being Spirit not persons.

 

[Peter1000]

Actually, from my studies into slavery in ancient cultures, the Romans were very exact in defining distinctions in respect of "person"

Ok I didn't phrase that very well. What I meant was that in roman law it can mean more than a distinct person. I was speaking of person being someone who had legal rights and referred to joint ownership of property.

So was Stephen right when he said he looked into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right side of God. If you have 2 Persons/manifestations standing next to each other, then 1 Spirit doesn't cut it biblically, because it is not distinctive and separate enough for this bible event. (see Acts 7:56)

All that proves is that God has a triune nature. See also that Stephen was filled with the Spirit as he saw it.

The only way to really understand Gods triunity is to deal with it on the basis of God being Spirit not persons.

If Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God, and the HS was in Stephen so he could witness God and Jesus in the heavens, then yes, that does confirm there are 3 (trinity) in the Godhead.

It also proves the Trinue God is 3 separate and distinct Persons. There are other scriptures in the bible that prove the same thing.

The real only way to really understand God's triunity is to deal with it on the basis that 1 member of the Trinue God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, and still does today. So how does that work into the idea that the Triune God is Spirit not persons?

 

[fatboys]

If Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God, and the HS was in Stephen so he could witness God and Jesus in the heavens, then yes, that does confirm there are 3 (trinity) in the Godhead.

It also proves the Trinue God is 3 separate and distinct Persons. There are other scriptures in the bible that prove the same thing.

The real only way to really understand God's triunity is to deal with it on the basis that 1 member of the Trinue God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, and still does today. So how does that work into the idea that the Triune God is Spirit not persons?

Their problem is how to force what Stephen saw into some kind of triune to fit what they believe. They have to do that with many things that will try and strengthen their position. What I find amazing is that many who are well versed in the scriptures cannot see the contradictions between what they believe and what the scriptures really say. In other words they cannot recouncil the contradictions.

 

[Rescued One]

The problem with person is it brings too much distinctiveness to it. Two persons standing together are entirely distinct and separate and couldn't be confused. Person really comes out of Roman law which didn't have as much distinctiveness to it.

The Greek idea of face or aspect and hypostasis is better. The best term is probably manifestation but it doesn't get used much in modern times.

The biblical view is God is one Spirit in 3 eternal Hypostasis or manifestations. I prefer the using the word personalities.

Believing God is 3 persons so united in unity and purpose that they are one is why they are Mormons and we are Christians

You aren't familiar with Mormon doctrines about God. Do some research.

Edited:
Sorry ... I misunderstood your post. Maybe you could word it more plainly.

 

[Rescued One]

Their problem is how to force what Stephen saw into some kind of triune to fit what they believe. They have to do that with many things that will try and strengthen their position. What I find amazing is that many who are well versed in the scriptures cannot see the contradictions between what they believe and what the scriptures really say. In other words they cannot recouncil the contradictions.

You can't see the contradictions between Truth and polytheistic Mormonism.

 

[Rescued One]

So was Stephen right when he said he looked into the heavens and saw Jesus standing on the right side of God. If you have 2 Persons/manifestations standing next to each other, then 1 Spirit doesn't cut it biblically, because it is not distinctive and separate enough for this bible event. (see Acts 7:56)

God is omnipresent. You're correct in explaining that the right refers to legal standing.
That is why the sheep are on the right and the goats are on the left.

 

[fatboys]

You can't see the contradictions between Truth and polytheistic Mormonism.

You can read into the scriptures what you want. Who on earth has the right to interpret scriptures? You? Many times the restored gospel has been presented here in the most beautiful way but it is rejected. When the perfect master and teacher presented the restored gospel to the very one who had been waiting for it did they all jump on board? The perfect teacher who taught the house of Israel that the messiah was here did they all bow down and worship him? If they couldn't accept the truth then what makes you think that if truth was presented to you that you would recognize it and better than the Jews did?

 

[Rescued One]

You can read into the scriptures what you want. Who on earth has the right to interpret scriptures?

The Holy Spirit has the right.

You? Many times the restored gospel has been presented here in the most beautiful way but it is rejected. When the perfect master and teacher presented the restored gospel to the very one who had been waiting for it did they all jump on board? The perfect teacher who taught the house of Israel that the messiah was here did they all bow down and worship him? If they couldn't accept the truth then what makes you think that if truth was presented to you that you would recognize it and better than the Jews did?

Can anyone see truth? Of course! Otherwise no one would be saved. And a reminder to you is that not all of Israel rejected the Messiah.

The True Messiah didn't speak to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith lied.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Pearl of Great Price, JS-H
Joseph Smith—History 1

The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

* pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

 

[fatboys]

The Holy Spirit has the right.




Can anyone see truth? Of course! Otherwise no one would be saved. And a reminder to you is that not all of Israel rejected the Messiah.

The True Messiah didn't speak to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith lied.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Pearl of Great Price, JS-H
Joseph Smith—History 1

The Apostles Creed
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

* pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

And this proves what? You believe in something that is false

 

[Rescued One]

And this proves what? You believe in something that is false

You asked, "Who on earth has the right to interpret scriptures?" I answered your question. The Holy Spirit has the right.


Who needs to prove Christianity to you? Proof isn't faith.

 

[fatboys]

You asked, "Who on earth has the right to interpret scriptures?" I answered your question. The Holy Spirit has the right.


Who needs to prove Christianity to you? Proof isn't faith.

Well the Holy Spirit told me that there was a restoration. So I ask again how do you know that the Holy Ghost told you that you were right out of all the thousands of different denominations your was the most correct version?

 

[Rescued One]

Well the Holy Spirit told me that there was a restoration. So I ask again how do you know that the Holy Ghost told you that you were right out of all the thousands of different denominations your was the most correct version?

I don't follow men; I follow Christ. Denominations aren't God.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

When the Holy Spirit leads us to Truth, we know it. I hope you can experience that someday --- then you won't have to ask how He does it.

Psalm 119
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[Jane_Doe]

I don't follow men; I follow Christ. Denominations aren't God.

Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

When the Holy Spirit leads us to Truth, we know it. I hope you can experience that someday --- then you won't have to ask how He does it.

Psalm 119
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Phoebe, different Christian denominations very much disagree on basic theological tenets. They are important, and whether or not you realize it you do follow one and disagree with other Christians on some major issues.

 

[Rescued One]

I am a Christian who studies her Bible, relies on the Holy Spirit, and worships the Triune God. CF members don't define who I am or who I follow. That would be like a non-Mormon telling a Mormon what he or she believes. Not all Mormons believe the same things even though their "prophet" would like for them to believe a certain set of beliefs.